NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Premeditated?

I haven't added any new posts to this blog for some time, basically because I felt I'd said all I had to say on this case. However, I've continued to respond to reader's comments all along, and there have been quite a few. Unfortunately the old gadget that once listed recent comments is apparently broken, so I apologize to those interested in keeping up with the comments, because they're hard to find. I just added a search mechanism to the blog, however, so if you sign with your name, rather than "anonymous," you'll hopefully be able to more easily find any comments you've made. And if you have a favorite topic, you can now look it up.

I'm posting again thanks to some comments by someone calling himself "Pete," who kept insisting that the ransom note was too well thought out and too detailed to have been written after the murder. Pete feels sure JonBenet was killed by an intruder, but at the same time it's hard for him to believe the intruder could have composed such a long, complicated note while at the Ramsey home. While Pete is sure John didn't write the note, and of course I'm sure he did, his argument for premeditation is kind of convincing, I must admit. So thank you, Pete. (And I want also to apologize to Pete for sometimes being rude and impatient when responding to his posts, which was uncalled for and unfair.)

If the note was written ahead of time, however, that presents a serious problem for any intruder theory, because it was hand printed on a pad from the Ramsey home. At one point Pete suggested that the intruder must have written it ahead of time and then copied it onto the notepad when he got to the Ramsey home, but that doesn't make much sense to me because I see no reason for him to do that.

Of course, someone close to the Ramseys could have taken the notepad with him, written the note on it, and then returned. Which sounds good at first, until one asks oneself: why? The only reason for doing that would be to make it look as though one of the Ramseys wrote it, but that would work only if the intruder actually forged John or Patsy's hand. But there is no evidence of that, and none of the document examiners on either side of the fence ever suggested the note could be a deliberate forgery. A "ransom" note written by an intruder, or one that looks like it was written by an intruder, could be seen as intruder evidence, so if the intruder were trying to set John or Patsy up, why would he leave a note in his own hand? Well, obviously, he wouldn't. So if the note was written ahead of time, it could not have been written by an intruder.

Which leaves us with the question: if John or Patsy wrote the note, was it written ahead of time? If so, that tells us the murder was premeditated, which casts the case in a somewhat different light. If in fact the murder was premeditated, we can pretty confidently rule out Patsy, because I can see no motive for her wanting to kill the child who was the apple of her eye. The only plausible reason ever given for Patsy as the killer was the possibility of an accident, but if the note was written in advance, the murder was clearly no accident. And since Burke obviously didn't write the note, the only one left is the one I've been focused on all along: John.

In the past, when asked whether I thought John could have premeditated this crime, I responded in the negative, because if premeditation were involved, then I felt sure he wouldn't have hand printed the note, but would have come prepared with something printed or typed. And that still makes the most sense to me. But I'm also impressed by Pete's argument regarding the length and complexity of the note, and the fact that it is written in such a cool, systematic manner, with every i dotted and every t crossed, with all the letters and words so consistently spaced and the left margin followed so carefully.

I'm also bothered by the discovery I made earlier (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/ruled-out-part-3-courier-new.html), that the note looks like it was traced or copied from a computer font:

That sort of preparation also takes time. So now I'm thinking that maybe the crime was premeditated after all. Ideally, of course, it would have been safer to come up with a printed or typed note, but we have to remember that John's plan could easily have included destroying the note before the police had a chance to retrieve it, claiming the kidnappers wanted it returned. So. If for some reason he didn't have access to a handy printer or typewriter when preparing his note, he might have felt confident about hand printing it, since if all went according to plan, the authorities would never have gotten their hands on it anyhow.

John spent several hours of Xmas day at the airport, and that has always struck me as a bit suspicious. That could have been his opportunity. He'd have taken his laptop with him, composed the note using a word processor (but not automatically saving any of it), and copied or traced it onto the note pad. Why he would take a notepad from his house to write his note on is not easy to explain. But in his mind, it might simply have been the handiest source of writing paper available. And if the note had been destroyed at the proper moment, it could never be traced back to his house in any case.

I'm not giving up entirely on the possibility of John writing the note after the murder, because JonBenet was probably killed fairly early in the evening and John would have had several hours to compose, revise and copy it. But I find the possibility of premeditation very interesting, if not completely convincing.

63 comments:

Thanks, Chelly. I don't post at WebSleuths anymore, not since a whole bunch of my posts there were erased -- with no warning and no explanation. However, if anyone at WS raises any issues you'd like me to comment on, you can post them here and I'll respond.

Doc, I read somewhere, maybe it was PMPT, that John commented that he decided not to film the kids on Christmas morning like he usually did each year. Said he just wanted to enjoy the moment. I get that, because when our kids were little we had the discussion: do we get all wrapped up in filming or do we just sit back and enjoy watching the kids. Still, I think its suspicious that he brought it up. If he did pre-meditate, there would be some reasons he would not want to film her (he wanted to enjoy his last day with her? Sick, I know - but only a sicko kills their child. Or, he just couldn't bring himself to have her last happy day on record for Patsy to watch over and over in the future, with him having to deal with the guilt.) He clearly has the ability to remove himself from his actions. Having that tape around while he continued his wonderful, affluent lifestyle with Patsy and Burke would be something he wouldn't want, though.

DNA is from ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART but PersonhoodUSA claims:*The Ramseys film themselves killing their daughter Jon Benet* - Patsy held the camera as her husband John strangled their six year old daughter Jon Benet. They filmed the procedure to show that “there’s such a thing a positive murder story”.- See more at: http://www.personhoodusa.com/blog/the-ramseys-film-themselves-killing-their-daughter-jon-benet/

PERSONHOOD USA GUILTY PROJECTION WITH A CONFESSION FROM A "SMALL FOREIGN FACTION" OF "PRO-LIFE" PSYCHOPATH PREDATORS....

THIS IS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT BY BOB ENYART TO LEAVE A SIGNATURE SAYING "IN YOUR FACE. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN" - WONDER IF THE FBI IS REALLY GONNA LET BOB THE LITTLE BITCH MOCK THEM SOME MORE?

www.BobEnyartMurderedJonBenetRamsey.com

"PRO-LIFE PASTOR" BOB ENYART IS THE "KEY PERSON" BEHIND THE PERSONHOOD USA MOVEMENT AND HE IS THE INTRUDER WHO MURDERED JONBENET RAMSEY AND FILMED IT. GO ASK HIM - HIS "SMALL FOREIGN FACTION" DNA WAS LEFT ON JONBENET - SATANIC SERIAL KILLER = ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART 666 -- STILL WAITING FOR THE FBI...CALL BOB ENYART LIES AT 1-800-8-ENYART AND TELL HIM TO KILL HIMSELF BEFORE MORE PEOPLE DIE!

hi so glad I found this blog, I was a strong supporter of pdi, but after reading this blog, and reading jr new book, I found three key take always that made me think.1. He stated that after the whites party, he went up the stairs keeping jonbenet in her clothes because patsy was going to come in and change her clothes per usual. Did I not read in their interrogations that she ran up closely in front of or behind John? Struck me as odd2. He stated that after he told Burke to go to bed he went upstairs and promptly fell into a deep, sound sleep per usual. Did he not say he took a melatonin tab and read a book for awhile?3. He states a couple times about "good southern upbringing , good sound southern way about him" made me think of the bs ramsey ransom note !The only problem I am having is the pineapple, an what do you think jonbenet was hit over the head with,, and if you know about her medical records, wasn't jonbenet struck over the head after she died too?

I can't comment on the three points you've raised because they are based on John's version of what happened, which imo is unreliable. Also, I'm not sure what you've stated is accurate.

As far as the pineapple is concerned, if both John and Patsy were in it together I see no reason for them to lie about feeding JonBenet pineapple. It's only when one is guilty and the other is innocent that there would be a reason to lie. I think John took JonBenet into the kitchen and fed her pineapple before killing her. True, his prints weren't on the bowl, but neither were hers. Patsy's prints and Burke's prints were on it, but both could have had opportunities to handle the bowl previously. If someone's hands are perfectly clean they won't leave prints.

I think JonBenet was hit over the head with the maglite later found in the kitchen. There are conflicting theories about whether the blow came before or after the strangulation. I feel sure it must have come first.

Seems John was always "losing his keys" and broke into his home several times. I think Patsy locked him out on many occassions and she was afraid of him. There were pry marks on doors around their home which Patsy told a friend was from John. I truly believe she was afraid of him and that he was a violent man

With due respect to Pete, I'm hard pressed to see what is convincing about the premeditated murder theory.

That the note is long and rambling suggests to me lack of time to edit, so quite contrary to requiring a lot of time, it suggests something done in haste w/o time to go over it several times refining and distilling it to it's essence. Such an important document would surely have been given generous amounts of time in the planning stages.

If premeditated, and therefore the RN was written in advance, why a "practice" note? All practicing would have ended days/weeks/months prior to the murder.

If written in advance why misspellings? It's obvious that there was no attempt to make the author appear uneducated, because while he can't spell business he can spell attache with the little mark over the e. It suggests to me misspellings that are habitual for a particular individual (and why expose yourself that way?) or a misspelling made in haste. Those of us who tend to transpose letters when we write or type know all too well how hard it can be to spot misspellings because our eyes "see" what we expect to see.

Why all the "crap" about a SFF? I don't really know what this is supposed to accomplish, but if it's really unnecessary that should be obvious as the murderer considers his plan and "hence" what to write in the note.

To me the note speaks more of desperation than careful prior planing.

I'm ambivalent about him writing over a computer generated note. It would be a good way to avoid individual characteristics which could identify (or at least suggest- since there is absolutely NO science involved in document analysis) who the author is. JR would be able to type the note on a computer, print it, copy over it and destroy the printed copy. But a computer would indicate the misspellings. I've always found it odd that both JR and PR seem to "write" in manuscript, which is actually printing, as opposed to cursive writing.

Pete made some valid points. He felt that a note of that length, containing so many details, and printed out in such a methodical manner, with no grammatical errors and only two common spelling mistakes, would be all but impossible for someone under extreme pressure to improvise on the spot. Whether we're talking about an intruder hanging out in the house before the Ramseys return, or someone who has just committed murder, it's not difficult to see that such a person would be more likely to write either a very short to the point note, or a very rambling note going off in all directions aimlessly. While many people find the note pointless and rambling, that's not how Pete saw it and it's not how I see it either. It's actually very carefully composed, with clearly defined sentences (all grammatical) and clear, coherent paragraphs. It begins with the "kidnappers" introducing themselves, continues with very explicit instructions, and builds to a climax of intimidation at the end.

Also, as you can see, it really does look as though it had been composed initially on a computer, and then copied, word for word, line by line, onto the notepad paper. That sort of thing would take a lot of planning and a lot of time to put together.

As for the "practice note" there really never was any such thing. All they found was a page from the notepad that read: "Mr. and Mrs. |," with that last vertical line presumably the beginning of the word "Ramsey." It may have nothing whatever to do with the ransom note. But even if it does, its presence in the notepad tells us nothing about when it was written. It could be something left over from an early draft that just got overlooked and accidentally left in the pad. Also, there are several pages torn out of the notepad that were never found. These could also represent early drafts that had been discarded before the writer entered (or re-entered) the Ramsey home. If they had been discarded while the writer was in the home, why were they never found there?

Imo certain details in the note, such as the "small foreign faction" (SFF) are there simply to make it look like what a "real" kidnapper might write. But the overall structure of the note is very purposeful and crystal clear.

I'm not completely sold on premeditation, because John would have had several hours to prepare that note after the murder. But it does have the look and feel of something prepared ahead of time, so Pete definitely has a point.

If it was premeditated, why Christmas night (well the dog was with neighbors for one) what with the planned trip to MI the next morning, and the need to notify the pilot plus call JAR and MR who were already on their way to MN to meet up for the continuing flight to MI. Wouldn't another, quieter, night, with fewer arrangements to "un-arrange" be a better choice?

Good point. Could be that John wanted JonBenet to have one more Christmas to enjoy before the end.

But imo the key is the fact that this night would have been his very last opportunity to take action before the trip to Charleroi. Also he might have been afraid JonBenet might want to confide in her half-sister when in Charleroi, so time would have been of the essence.

Unarranging the trip would not have been a big deal, just a matter of a couple phone calls cancelling the trip "due to illness" or something like that.

Another comment or two on why I think the note indicates a lack of editing and therefore a lack of prior planning.

What does "tomorrow" mean? It seems obvious to me that it means the 27th as the Rs could scarcely have been expected to see the note until the 26th. But should they have realized that the note was written (ostensibly) on the 25th, therefore making "tomorrow" the 26th? While it seems clear enough to me, the police apparently were waiting a round for a ransom call that imo was not supposed to come until the next day. What this means is that there are two ways to interpret the word "tomorrow". Does the author of the RN want to be vague? Not if the idea is to maximize the amount of time to get rid of the body.

A second point is the reference to an "adequately" sized attache to carry the money. I'd guess that even a millionaire seldom handles $118K in cash, and so has little idea of how big a case would be needed. I once did the calculations on the stacks of money. I no longer remember the height of the stacks in inches, but suffice to say the money would all fit in a medium sized paper lunch bag. IOWs, anything sold as an attache or breif case would already be more than adequately sized. There was no need to recommend checking the size of the attache. Such a detail would have been looked into if the note was carefully crafted over days (weeks?) Instead we have an unnecessary caution indicating that the RN writer really didn't know how much space is taken up by $118K.

Doc, since you are a writer and poet, think of your own work and the editing process. Isn't it true that your rough drafts are longer than your finished product? Isn't it true that the finished product is (hopefully) clearer and more readily understood than the roughs?

I think Pete (with all respect to Pete) is simply quite wrong about the note requiring lots of time and preparation. Why does it run on for 370 or so words? Because there wasn't time to get it down to 250. 125 might have been possible, given sufficient time.

Again I think it's telling that there is a "false start" note, or "practice" note. Had this been planned days in advance, and had JR copied over a print out (while at the airport) why would there be a "practice" note?

Also there are cross-outs and corrections, which imply haste, not carefully tracing at leisure.

No, this note was not thought out in advance, nor was it copied by hand in advance. It may well have been traced over a print out, but not ahead of time.

You make some good points, but none are decisive imo. This was not a term paper, but a conscious attempt at deception, so it would not need to have been carefully edited for concision, nor would it have needed to make perfect sense in all details.

The two places where words are crossed out do, as you say, imply haste and not careful pre-planning. However, they could represent a last minute correction of errors that had been overlooked initially. I find myself often making such corrections at the very last minute.

I must say I'm on the fence with this one. But one thing I do know. If it was premeditated, it was definitely NOT written by either an intruder or Patsy.

The meaning of "tomorrow" has been the source of much confusion, but imo the note is crystal clear on that score. There is no way "tomorrow" could possibly have meant anything other than the 27th. First of all the writer clearly intended the note to be found the morning of the 26th. When the note itself was written is totally irrelevant. For all we know it could have been written a week in advance. Secondly, the note instructs John to both collect the ransom and be rested prior to the "kidnapper's" phone call. How could he possibly have done that before 8 AM on the 26th?

The fact that the police were expecting the call that morning tells us more about the mentality of the police than that of the note writer, whose instructions are perfectly clear and consistent.

Well I guess we see it differently. The note as I see it suffered from lack of editing. I don't think it would be hard to write that in an hours time.

If there had been sufficient time to think it through, and edit, there would have been no errors to fix at the last minute.

Unless SFF had some significance to PR I don't see the need for it nor does it strike me as being something a real kidnapper would say. Likewise with SBCT. There really isn't a need for PR to know who has JB, just that someone has JB.

The note is cogent, for the most part. It starts with a salutation, goes on to inform that JB is being held for ransom, specifies the amount, and warns, over, and over not to call the police.

I'm generally in agreement with your theory of the case, and one important point in that theory is that PR did not read carefully. (Or she chose to ignore the warnings) A shorter note might have had a better chance of being read and absorbed?

I mean no disrespect to Pete, but I just don't see that this was carefully thought out days ahead of time. I can see why someone might come to that conclusion, but for me the arguments for the note being written before the murder are not at all convincing.

As for "tomorrow" while you and I agree that there is no sensible interpretation but the 27th, it's apparent from the police activities that many misunderstood. Either the police are morons, or there are two possible interpretations, even if one is a little "iffy". The whole point of editing for clarity is that there should be little to no chance of the note being misinterpreted.

To be fair, if your theory is correct, and I think it is, then the police were never meant to interpret the meaning of tomorrow anyway. If PR misunderstood, she could be corrected.

If the murder was planned in advance, let's say for discussion a few days in advance, then why the brutality? And why two different injuries, both capable, on their own, of killing her?

IMO the blow to the head came first. My reasoning is simply that the asphyxiation was an effective killing method, and obviously so. The mission accomplished, what need is there to bonk her on the head? No additional "insurance" is needed, it's quite obvious that the garrote did the trick. There is no chance that the blow to the head, would hide the asphyxiation.

Remember that we are contemplating a father killing his daughter, in cold blood, calmly, deliberately, for the purpose of silencing her. The noose is very effective for this purpose. Bashing her skull is potentially messy (if the skin had broken there would have been a lot of blood to clean up) and not certain to produce death.

So, if premeditated, why the clumsy less certainly effectual bash to the skull ? Why would that be JR's first choice for killing method? And if the garrotte was his first choice, why bother at all with clubbing her afterword ?

IMO the blow to the head was either an accident or something done in a moment of rage, not something preplanned.

"If the murder was planned in advance, let's say for discussion a few days in advance, then why the brutality? And why two different injuries, both capable, on their own, of killing her?"

Excellent questions. I too think the head blow came first. But I don't think it was an accident or rage. I think he struck her that way, and of course from behind, so she wouldn't feel any fear or pain. And would never know who struck her. In his mind it could have been the most merciful way to kill her. You have to realize also that he'd been in the navy and would probably have received at least some training in the use of various types of weapon. He may have felt confident the maglite would not have drawn blood and that's probably why he used it. (And cleaned it and the batteries of all prints.)

Once she was rendered unconscious it might have made sense for him to finish her off by strangling her. And since he might have been squeamish about placing his hands directly on her neck, chose the ligature method. There's one clue that strongly suggests she was strangled only after the head blow. Patches of her hair were intertwined with the knots on the stick, meaning hairs were torn out of her head while it was being assembled. If she'd been conscious she'd have screamed bloody murder at that point.

Your take on the blow being to disable JB quickly and quietly, enabling her to be relieved of undue pain or panic makes a very solid point. It was enough that he knew he would have to kill her, and she being of his own creation and blood, would certainly elicit some compassion for her, you would think. JR would have expected to be able to keep JB managed as his plaything, and killing her would have been his only resort for self preservation, which would have made it a necessary evil for him.

You are right that his Navy experience might have given him the necessary training on how to use the maglite to harmfully subdue someone. The same Navy training at SUBIC BAY in the Phillipines might have also lent him the skill of using the ligature as a strangulation device, since a garrote is a well-known Phillipine weapon. Sailors on shore leave in Subic would have received a seminar prior to leaving the ship on effective ways to protect themselves there, since it was a well known port for high crime and the availability of child sex activity. The use of a garrote might have been demonstrated to them, since the can be used by thugs to disable victims for robbery.

I'm glad you agree, MWMM. Technically though, as I understand it, the device was not strictly speaking a garrote so much as a ligature with a handle to make tightening easier. Nevertheless it's the sort of thing he might have learned in the navy. He would certainly have learned about knots.

I was in the navy and never got any training on how to kill someone with a blunt object like a Maglite. Not much to it really, you hit them very very hard.

I've been to Subic many times. It's a so called "working port" where there is a regular workday and the ship undertakes repairs and replenishment. There is time for liberty, after work, but no special training in how to protect yourself - go with several buddies.

I would not consider it an especially dangerous place. I got robbed by a taxi driver, but he took me back to the base after the robbery. They just want the $, not to hurt anyone. I never felt I was in any danger so long as I handed over my $5.

While it could be the case that the blow to the head put her "out" so she didn't feel the "garrote", One would have to be very sure of hitting hard enough the first time, otherwise it would be very painful. I tend to think the blow to the head was an accident, or momentary rage. To me it seems harder to bash your child's skull than to garrote her, but maybe that's just me.

The blow to the head was powerful. It literally split her skull open end to end. But left no trace of blood externally. Whether that was planned or it just happened that way is hard to tell. It's certainly possible that he just lost his temper and struck her with the first item that came to hand. And when he noticed there was no blood realized he could cover up what he'd done by staging a kidnapping.

Or he could have chosen the maglite deliberately because of its hard rubber head that wouldn't have been likely to tear open the scalp.

Thanks for the info on navy training and also Subic Bay, which is interesting. I guess it's only the Seals that get extensive training in unusual weaponry.

"To me it seems harder to bash your child's skull than to garrote her, but maybe that's just me."

Everyone is different for sure. But to many people I would think clubbing over the head would be the most "merciful" way to kill, whether you're dealing with a suffering animal or a "problem" child. The blow need not kill the victim. It would have been enough to knock her out, so she wouldn't be aware of what happened next and would not be in pain. Also, if you club her from behind, you need not look her in the eye.

I dont think it matters much to the theory but Meyer cut the hair away from her head that was entangled in the garrotte at autopsy.So I think it was added to make it look more like an intruder after she was dead or incapacitated. I dont think it was so much a part of the murder as it was an afterthought to point away from loving parents who would in no way to that to a child.

If we see it as staging we have to ask: what is being staged? And I'm sorry but I see no reason to stage with a "garotte" after the child's head has been bashed in and after she's been sexually assaulted. Those elements in themselves should be enough if you are staging a pedophile intruder. And if you are staging a kidnapper, then it's important to remove the body from the house -- the "garotte" adds nothing to the kidnap staging.

In any case, I see no point in staging both a sexual assault AND a kidnapping. Looks to me like what was staged was a kidnapping. And that the kidnapping was staged to point away from a sexual assault and murder. That makes the garotte a part of the murder, i.e., NOT part of the staging. Why he would choose such an unusual device I'm not sure, but I do feel sure it would have been removed prior to dumping the body.

“I must say I'm on the fence with this one. But one thing I do know. If it was premeditated, it was definitely NOT written by either an intruder or Patsy.” Or Burke, poor Burke, left to hang that way.

I’m glad you’re keeping this alive, DocG. I think many people fear the long arm of John Ramsey.

Premeditation is certainly possible if JB was mentioning abuse, standing up to Patsy, wetting her bed as a deterrent, and now going on vacation where she couldn’t be tightly controlled. By all accounts, JB was a spunky girl, and an older half-sister would be a natural ally. She may have been quite happy, thinking she was getting out from under her problems. The killer knew something must be done.

Yes. It sounds terrible, to be sure. And for a long time I wanted to give John the benefit of the doubt, because he can come across as your average loving Dad, the sort who could never harm anyone. But it's hard to argue with the facts and it's hard to defend what looks to me like blatant lies. I just hope John gets his day in court, where he'll have an opportunity to fully explain himself -- if he can.

Greetings, DocG.While I always wanted to believe an intruder did it, the more I read and research, the more I was able to accept it being a family member. Until of late, and after reading Steve Thomas' book, I was convinced that Patsy did it and JR knew nothing until Patsy screamed and called police on the 26th. Nothing new here. PMPT.Then, I read James Kolar's book and want to think the young brother, BR, may have done it. Something about being an evil 9yo just doesn't seem right. Kolar stated on Tricia's radio show last evening that BR held jealousy over JBR. Also, Kolar caught BR smiling largely for the camera the week of his sister's death, which struck him as odd behavior. Kolar believes JBR came to the kitchen for something to eat and snuck a piece of pineapple from his bowl. So, BR grabbed her shirt around the neck and twisted, indicating, to Kolar, this strangling occurred first and soon followed by the blow to the head with the Maglite. You are brilliant! I completely see the commonality of the RN and the typed font. I also see a slightly shaky hand writing in many of the letters which indicates nervousness. Years ago, when first learning the contents of the RN. I was terrified of the SFF and the SBCT, whoever they are.S.Thomas said Patsy's handwriting samples were the only ones that changed handwriting styles after the RN was inspected and samples were obtained. Now your chilling theories re: JR are convincing. Although there is a question. If JB knows he must silent his daughter by killing her, I mean, dangit. That's brutal. Killing her to keep a secret hidden that becomes exposed anyway doesn't work for me. Couldn't JR just stop doing it. Apologize to her. And live happily ever after?Also, the three hours JR spent earlier on Christmas Day at the airport was quite odd unless he was meeting a GF. If had a GF, why abuse his daughter?

"S.Thomas said Patsy's handwriting samples were the only ones that changed handwriting styles after the RN was inspected and samples were obtained." Thomas focused on Patsy's use of manuscript "a," which according to him she routinely used prior to the murder, but stopped using afterward. That's completely false. Patsy tended to mix both types of "a" both before and after the murder -- as is abundantly evident in her London letter, where manuscript a appears several times. Thomas was seeing what he wanted to see and ignoring what he didn't.

"If JB knows he must silent his daughter by killing her, I mean, dangit. That's brutal. Killing her to keep a secret hidden that becomes exposed anyway doesn't work for me. Couldn't JR just stop doing it."

I think it possible John was hoping the acute damage he inflicted that night would cover the signs of chronic abuse. Maybe that's why he penetrated her vagina at that time, so he could blame the "kidnapper" for breaching her hymen. It also seems clear, to me at least, that she must have been threatening to "tell," so it would probably have been too late to stop abusing her. His business had recently topped a billion dollars in sales, so he was flying high. An accusation of child abuse from his own daughter would have been devastating. He'd have lost everything.

*ALERT: Serial Child Killers in CO who now use Facebook to target their victims: When History Repeats Itself, Will We Notice? Watch new video by Chess Versus Checkers here => http://youtu.be/MTuRTPtPetw

Who Murdered JonBenet Ramsey, Jessica Ridgeway & Dylan Redwine? Ask "Pastor" Bob Enyart, He Knows -- Call Bob Enyart LIES at 1-800-8-ENYART & tell him to turn himself into the FBI or MORE KIDS WILL DIE.

Listen to DenverBibleChurch.org cult leader Bob Enyart's LIES on the web at www.KGOV.com, and call Bob’s show weekdays at 1‑800‑8Enyart at 3:00 p.m. MTN time to ask Bob why he LIES. Was meeting off of 72nd & Oak Street in Arvada, CO when Jessica was found dismembered - NOW DBC is at 200 W 48th Ave. Denver, CO======================

Initially i didn't think much of the premeditation idea. But after letting it roll around in the brain pan for a few months, it's starting to make more sense. I'm not completely convinced, but I'd have to say it's a possibility.

The note, imo, could have been shorter if it had been edited more, but it does seem that considerable thought was put into tailoring it to the overall plan. So, Pete, if you are still out there reading this blog, I'm coming around to seeing your POV. Takes me a while sometimes.

The other thing that makes me consider premeditation is the blow to the head. I'd assumed for years it was an accident but this blog has made me realize it could well have been part of the plan.

We'll never really know, but premeditation certainly can't be dismissed.

Johns writing sample--he uses capital letters throughout. It bothered me when I didnt see that crop up in the ransom note but if he was copying from a computer font as you have described above it erases the problem for me and makes perfect sense. I was also bothered by the way the "t" and the "a" was drawn in the note but again the computer font answers that dilemma quite nicely. Good job DocG! brilliant work. I too found it quite strange that the hours were spent at the airport that day. And especially bothersome was the fact that no video tape was made of Christmas day as noted above by another poster. You didnt give your thoughts on that DocG so please respond if you see this.

Look at the letter again. There is consistency with some of the letters.The W is easy to see. There are some things you can not hide,all the time. Your writing will give you away. The e. Look hard, many are the same. It shoots out The u. The ending is higher. It shoots up. The s. Many are on an angle. The s looks up. You'll see it. The m. The second hump is higher. I saw copies of PR writtings on a poster. I'll try and find them again and post them. I'll be back with some new findings

Doc, you mentioned several times that you believe JR needed to silence JB because of a possible threat that she was going to tell her half-sister what daddy was doing to her. First of all, I wouldn't think she would feel close enough to her half-sister to do that; it would be more likely for her to tell her mommy. So rather than planning to kill her out of fear that she was going to talk to her half-sister, I believe he struck her spontaneously after JB said she was going to tell her mommy. Maybe this was the first time she ever said that and maybe she was headed up the stairs and JR had to strike her down and stop her. That makes more sense to me.

I focused on Melinda because people have wondered why the murder took place on that particular night, and it seemed to me that the forthcoming trip to Charlevoix was a logical possibility. It does look to me like John may have felt confident he could "gaslight" Patsy into believing just about anything he told her, but once JonBenet was with the rest of the family the danger of her "telling" would have been too great. However, you might very well be right and it's certainly possible JonBenet was killed because she threatened to tell Patsy. The timing might have been coincidental, who knows?

If John was sexually abusing Jb Patsy knew or suspected, imo thats why she obsessivly took her to the Dr. In hopes he would see something and she wouldn't have to confront John. Remember money means everything to some people and neither Ramsey was going to let private scandle ruin their billion dollar company. Jb wouldnt threaten to tell on her dad,and may not have even known it was wrong. I think its more likely JR over did it this particular night, tired, maybe drunk from the party, he went too far and had to cover his mistake somehow

If this was to be for the ransom to actually be paid, why didn;t the intruder take the body with him - - the Ramsey's would then pay the ransom thinking their daughter was still alive. It doesn't make sense to leave a ransom note and the body too.

I'm not certain that the ransom note negates the body in the wine cellar. Logically, it does, of course, but I believe this staging was done in haste and desperation, with the mind racing and following several courses of action at once. Some things to consider:

1. The Ramseys, being wealthy and privileged, vastly underestimated the police. They assumed the ransom note would be taken seriously, and that the search would be OUT THERE, not in the house. Ramsey even asked why they were not closing the airports.

It was only when Detective Arndt refused to leave, and informed him the sniffer dogs would be coming, that he took the opportunity to "find" the body.

2. Patsy saying to the friend, "We never meant for this to happen" and "Can you fix this?" indicates she knew Jonbebet was dead and had been part of it: Otherwise, she would have been screaming angrily for someone to find the kidnappers before it was too late. She was resigned and already grieving from the start.

3. From all I've read about Jonbenet, she was a compliant child, and treasured her Daddy especially because she was aware her mother was seriously ill, and that he would be the surviving parent. She was compliant, and not at all vengeful, and JR was quite aware of this (giving him the confidence to molest her). It's likely that PR saw JR doing something, bashed the child, (mothers often irrationally hate the daughter, and blame her) and together, they staged a confused plan---each had something on the other.

"They assumed the ransom note would be taken seriously, and that the search would be OUT THERE, not in the house."

Once we exclude an intruder, then the only possible interpretation of the ransom note is to stage a phony kidnapping. All the many threats in the note would have given the Ramseys the perfect excuse not to call the police until they could get the body out of the house. They could easily have done that the following night, while claiming they were delivering the ransom.

Writing a phony ransom note and then calling the police before the body has been removed makes no sense at all. And no, the person who wrote that note was not confused. It was very carefully composed and written in a very consistent style, with every i dotted, every t crossed, with absolutely consistent spacing between words and careful adherence to the margin. This was a very carefully thought through plan. And the person who conceived that plan would not have called the police before the plan had been carried out.

Once that call was made, there would be no way to remove the body without the police being aware of it. If the plan involved removing the body then that would certainly have been done prior to calling the police.

Well, I guess what you're saying is hard to argue with. What about Det. Thomas believing it was Patsy who did it? How does he get around the body in the wine cellar? And what do you think of my remarks about what Patsy said in my post above? But what you say is indeed very convincing.

Thomas was way off base in my opinion. He couldn't see past John being ruled out and convinced himself it HAD to be Patsy -- so he decided to ignore all the evidence pointing away from her and placed a lot of emphasis on evidence that didn't really mean very much. Such as Patsy's remarks, which were in all likelihood perfectly innocent. Why on earth would she have wanted to confess the murder of her daughter to a friend, even if she WERE guilty? I think she did feel guilty for getting JonBenet involved in the pageant scene, where the "intruder" might have seen her and been turned on. Which would be why she said "we didn't mean for this to happen."

Listen case-fooy...that's what the author of the ransom note intended, even the syntax supports this. The word "Speaking" is one of many clues that links this crime to the 1960's Zodiac killer persona, a persona fashioned after the old movie "Charlie Chan at Treasure Island. Get it? Google: "The brutal murder of JonBenet Ramsey and the Zodiac killer" by TerryB, it's on Nanette Barto's blog. Check out my annotated documents starting around page 15 and forward, then study my findings. You'll be floored!!!

Howdy, it's me Pete the guy you've been referring to in the initial post...I stumbled across this blog cause I was looking for a pic of the RN...my theory hasn't changed-note was written before the murder most likely transcribed...so much about this crime screams preplanning most likely from someone who knew the Ramsey's at least somewhat, I still believe it was an intruder but there are definite things unknown, ps-apology accepted

Thanks Pete. Glad you finally found my apology. Your ideas re premeditation do make sense. But as I said above, if the note had been written by an intruder to frame either John or Patsy the writer would have attempted to forge the hand of at least one of them. Yet, none of the 6 handwriting "experts" hired by either the Ramseys or the DA noticed anything like that. John was ruled out and Patsy deemed "unlikely." A note written in the intruder's own hand points away from any attempt at a frame-up.

Also we need to consider the broken basement window and John's fantastic story about breaking in months earlier, which is clearly a fabrication.

Actually I don't think so...I think the intruder probably thought he could outsmart the cops and didn't think they'd be on to him...it's also possible this person didn't know much about handwriting analysis but was aware of fingerprints etc...the better question was why leave the note behind, possibly to buy some time or throw off the cops...also ask yourself this, it would've been so much easier for john to say he didn't break the window if this was all elaborate staging

As for the note, I can't imagine someone who's trying to set up the Ramseys leaving a note written in his own hand, with no attempt at forgery. So, as far as I'm concerned, we can rule that out as a motive. What other possibility is there? As you say, the note appears to have been written in advance -- but why would someone prepare such a note on Ramsey stationary without at least attempting a forgery? Otherwise it looks like intruder evidence. Which leads us to conclude that, assuming an intruder, it would have been written while in the house. Which means it could not have been prepared ahead of time. A note prepared ahead of time would have been brought into the house with the would-be kidnapper, no?

Sure, anything is possible. But a jury must decide on the basis of reasonable doubt, not just any doubt at all based on an extremely unlikely premise.

Which is what I think...this was a prepared crime, the motive I suspect was to abduct JB and make her the killer's plaything but something went wrong...the note was written to make it look like a kidnapping-notice the RN has like every kidnapping reference under the sun, it's overkill as if the killer is trying to convince us it's really a kidnapping, I don't think a kidnapping for ransom was ever really the motive...like I said the note was probably brought with them which leads to 2 possibilities-either the killer decided to frame the Ramseys by transcribing it on their stationary or they did so because they were afraid to leave their copy, maybe they thought it had a fingerprint on it or something...the killer is trying to throw off the cops by using terms like foreign faction, making it seem like this is the work of some distant entity...again the killer is somewhat criminally naive and is hoping the cops don't look too hard in the immediate area or check into friends, acquaintances, etc...this is probably why the note was left behind as well, to try and keep the cops from looking too hard or because they decided to set up the Ramseys, the more diabolical reason...only the killer knows..I remain unconvinced that John Ramsey had anything to do with this based on my findings so we'll just have to agree to disagree on who committed it:)

If the intent of the note was to make it look like a kidnapping, then, as I see it, the only person with a motive to write such a note was John Ramsey. I just can't see why any intruder would attempt to stage a phony kidnapping, that just makes no sense to me. So, yes, I disagree.

Well like I said the intent may have been to implicate the Ramseys with the note...or look at it this way, imagine the killer lives in the area and has targeted JB. Now he could simply try and abduct her but maybe in his mind he thinks by making it look like a kidnapping by some foreign faction the cops won't do a thorough canvass of the area...obviously there are unknown variables that only the killer knows...there may not be sound logic in this killer's mind...I've studied the case from every possible angle and I am quite certain none of the Ramseys were involved in the crime, so all that is left is an intruder...good luck!

bob enyart is a satanic ritual sex child rapist and killer.he sex kill jonbenet and his d.n.a match.he will lie to you to get your children have evil sex with them.then kill them and blame somebody for his crimes don't go to his evil antichrist church in Colorado he is a terrorist and your kids could be next.

While reading the ransom note, I noticed that there were two "hypothetical" spaces after the period of each sentence and the beginning of a new one. In 1996, most people did not have or work on a computer in their home AND this was a HANDWRITTEN note, which doesn't require the two space gap. Did the Boulder Police note that whomever wrote this note must have been someone who worked on computers as a writer? It seems logical to me.

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.